In journalism, we find the ultimate weakness and achilles heal of 'capitalism'. Newspapers are commercial first and foremost, to sell advertising space, not to inform its readers.

To sell advertising, you must grab attention, hold it, and focus it on the content paid for by your advertizers. Similar to how OLO now displays Ads in the middle of the comments and articles.

The problem arises, when 'shareholder value' in the Media entity concerned becomes more important than social responsiblity, which I'm guessing is pretty much always. If its a slow news day....what do you do ? make it up ? spin it for maximum (but often deliberately false) impact ? Do you put a picture of a Bishop on the front page along with a sub story about a 'small child' and without saying anything specific... say VOLUMES..... ?

Socialist approaches to media are no better. Your hold on power depends on the populations willingness to accept your performance (unless its a dictatorship) so... the nationalized news is giving a plug for this or that government initiative... ad absurdum. Instead of increasing 'shareholder' value, they spin/twist/report with the goal of increasing "Government" value.

So where does this leave us ? Personal ethics of Journalists ? doubtful, they are subject to editorial veto. Managerial ethics ? hardly, they are out to bring in the bucks.

Perhaps our best answer is that competing approaches (left vs right) in control of various media outlets will at least give us both poles of the spectrum on the same stories, I guess its up to us to 'plumb the truth' from the big piccy.

A jounalist can have all the ethics and sense of social responsibility in the world, but at the end of the day if his work doesn't sell advertising space he will be ingraciously culled.

So where does this leave a 'Godbotherer' like me ? Well, somewhere in the middle I suppose. I see it all as a commentary on the human condition, for which I prescribe liberal doses of national repentance and living faith in Christ.

"dont hate the media, become the media"
jello biafra.

I find myself getting pretty cranky reading the paper these days. The Australian, our only national daily broadsheet, seems to run opinion and editorial designed to insult the reader's intelligence. I sometimes wonder if it isn't like that school of advertising that attracts attention by irritating or annoying people. Why do I put myself through it, I sometimes wonder. And the juxtaposition of those pieces with liberal sprinkles of tabloid titbit and cross-media promotion makes for a pretty unsatisfying reading experience. But, as has been pointed out, while I long for the day when some decent competition comes along (a sort of Mister Darcy media magnate), it's economically unviable. So we can turn to blogs and so on (though the screen makes my eyes hurt) but the resources are limited, the audiences fragmented, and journalism as a true vocation & as a democratic institution, is perhaps threatened. What is to be done?

So what does Eric think?
A few lines for
Credibility
Relevance
Trivialisation
Funding
Ownership
Commercialisation

75% of the article about
Technology

Concluding with

“Not only is entertainment more profitable than journalism, it is also far more universal….. The future of serious journalism is under threat in large part because it has been replaced by entertainment at the heart of the media power edifice”

And the point is?

The media has been in a constant state of change, since before Caxton.
Most of “the change” has been driven by technology. Hence, this majority of this article (on a line count basis) is about “technology”.

Anyone who cares for their profession questions from time to time that professions Credibility, Relevance, Trivialisation, Funding, Ownership, Commercialisation. We question and then get on with the important stuff – executing our honed and cherished skills for our clients / customers / readers to pass judgement on.

The future for “serious” journalism has been under threat since before James Gillray started illustrating and lampooning individuals.

Let us get this straight, a journalist, regardless of how “serious” they might perceive themselves (or how pompously), has no right of tenure or support from a fickle and free public. When faced with issues of credible, relevant, trivialised, funding, ownership or commercialisation it is the “quality” of the journalist, not the people who pay him, which will prevail – just like I do in my profession.

As for “And that would not only be a disaster for journalists, it would be a tragedy for Australian democracy. What are these dangerous trends.”

Na – journalists are just “part of the system”, they are not “the system”.

It is simple “Ego” which blinds the feeble from realising same and promotes the “pompous” to write about it .

As for “serious”.
When “serious” is simply a simile for “dull, pompous and boring”, I guess “serious” will always get the shaft.

Henery

“I'm losing hope.
Media proprietors are giving Aussies what the majority seem to want.”

Those uncivilised notions of democracy are everywhere!

TUS, as always you hit the target!

tus - apologies for casting aspersions on your journalistic integrity by suggesting that you work for a Murdoch newspaper. However, you inadvertently reinforce my point by admitting that your employer is one of the very few independent papers left in this country.

Personally, I only buy the local rag a couple of times a week and the Weekend Oz (yeah... I know) on Saturdays, preferring to read news and analysis online and to listen to ABC radio. One thing that's always annoyed me about newspapers (even broadsheets) is the huge amount of waste... every Sunday I chuck out great tomes of sports, lifestyle and finance crap that I haven't read. While this is useful in winter, it's a pain the rest of the time.

Having known a few journos (and journalism educators) in my time, I have to say that I haven't been particularly impressed by the standard of their work - although they tell me that a large part of the problem is that the editors they work for tend to be ignoramuses who were promoted more for toeing the corporate line than for reasons of journalistic integrity.

I wouldn't consider it an aspersion if I did work for Murdoch - they are all good papers. My point was it was assumption which was false.

Journalism, like any profession, has its good practitioners and its bad. whether we like it or not, it is commercial and is driven by what people want to read about.

I don't think it is a matter of quality or dumbing down, just the choice of stuff people want to read about.

Trust me, if Australia was going down the gurgler and there was real reason for protest against the government, the people would be vocal and expect so-called "hard" news.

But you can't force feed people champagne and caviar when all they want is a steak and a cold beer.

And worse, you shouldn't judge people because they eat that steak and come across as having moral superiority because you like to eat high cuisine.

As I said before, the common folk will smell pretension faster than they would two-day old caviar.

t.u.s